Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, said the gains may be solid enough to lower the national unemployment rate. "Continued solid gains in employment since Spring further allay fears that the broad economic recovery may be undermined by a softening trend in employment," he said. "The gain in private employment in September is strong enough to suggest that the national unemployment rate may have declined."

Last month, based on data from August, the national unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 to 8.1 percent. And while a drop in the unemployment rate may seem positive, it was mostly the result of some 368,000 people who gave up their search for work, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, said the gains may be solid enough to lower the national unemployment rate. "Continued solid gains in employment since Spring further allay fears that the broad economic recovery may be undermined by a softening trend in employment," he said. "The gain in private employment in September is strong enough to suggest that the national unemployment rate may have declined."

Last month, based on data from August, the national unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 to 8.1 percent. And while a drop in the unemployment rate may seem positive, it was mostly the result of some 368,000 people who gave up their search for work, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

Not really. The ADP report showed a drop in unemployment due to a decrease in the total labor force. The BLS showed a drop in unemployment despite an increase to the total labor force (and a very tepid increase in jobs). The ADP survey makes sense, the BLS doesn't.

This brings us to the September jobs report. According to the establishment survey, only 114k non-farm payroll jobs were added last month. That’s well below the 206k increase in the working-age population, according to the household survey. But once again, the U3 rate dropped, this time down to 7.8%. As always, I expected this to be the result of a dramatic shrinkage in labor force participation. Yet, shockingly enough, the labor force actually grew by 418K in September, even more than it shrunk the previous month.

So the labor force shrinks during a month of tepid job growth, and the U3 declines. Now the labor force grows during a month of tepid job growth, yet the U3 rate….still declines!

The culprit? Under the “employed” data point of the household survey, you will find that there was an increase of 873k among the ranks of the employed population! That’s the largest gain since the Reagan years when the economy was growing by 9.3%. We know that the household survey is a different measure of employment with a different methodology than the establishment survey (it’s a smaller survey), but when did we ever have such a divergence between the two surveys?

And, this kind of smoke and mirrors or apparent shell game is especially suspicious on the verge of a presidential election thought by most to hinge largely on public perceptions of unemployment rates.

And, this kind of smoke and mirrors or apparent shell game is especially suspicious on the verge of a presidential election thought by most to hinge largely on public perceptions of unemployment rates.

I am suspicious by nature of any political entity, but I think part of the problem is that people really don't understand statistics. The numbers they release each month have large error bars, but the media doesn't talk about that. The 114k new jobs number has error bars of 100k, which means that both 14k and 214k are reasonable estimates for the number of jobs.

This wasn't always such a big deal in the past, but recently the idea that the economy determines election results has become conventional wisdom, so the employment numbers are are huge deal. Since they are a statistical sample, they unavoidably have an element of randomness to them, meaning that the press, and therefore the public, is hyping this months random number.

The fact is that if you wait long enough, these types of variations will happen. It is probably stupid to place too much importance on this.

And, this kind of smoke and mirrors or apparent shell game is especially suspicious on the verge of a presidential election thought by most to hinge largely on public perceptions of unemployment rates.

I am suspicious by nature of any political entity, but I think part of the problem is that people really don't understand statistics. The numbers they release each month have large error bars, but the media doesn't talk about that. The 114k new jobs number has error bars of 100k, which means that both 14k and 214k are reasonable estimates for the number of jobs.

This wasn't always such a big deal in the past, but recently the idea that the economy determines election results has become conventional wisdom, so the employment numbers are are huge deal. Since they are a statistical sample, they unavoidably have an element of randomness to them, meaning that the press, and therefore the public, is hyping this months random number.

The fact is that if you wait long enough, these types of variations will happen. It is probably stupid to place too much importance on this.

You make a very good point about the precision. I guess I was intuitively headed in that direction when I compared the estimated change to the implied total (114K vs 39 million). All it takes to get such results is some slightly optimistic assumptions here and there, which can be effectively buried deep within the hierarchy of analysis.

However, my skepticism stems also from having seen the way the Obama administration has, frequently and apparently without compunction, manipulated information in general to mislead the public. This is true to some extent of all political entities and corporations, but I have the impression the Obama Administration is more concerned with perception than reality, and that manipulating the facts and deceiving the public is one of their prime focuses and default courses of action in any situation.

That might be the most pathetic example of political desperation I have ever seen. In a government organization with around 2500 people, they managed to identify one person, who doesn't appear to have anything to do with the employment numbers, and one former employee, who have given money to Obama.

You make a very good point about the precision. I guess I was intuitively headed in that direction when I compared the estimated change to the implied total (114K vs 39 million). All it takes to get such results is some slightly optimistic assumptions here and there, which can be effectively buried deep within the hierarchy of analysis.

However, my skepticism stems also from having seen the way the Obama administration has, frequently and apparently without compunction, manipulated information in general to mislead the public. This is true to some extent of all political entities and corporations, but I have the impression the Obama Administration is more concerned with perception than reality, and that manipulating the facts and deceiving the public is one of their prime focuses and default courses of action in any situation.

I guess you are either a conspiracy theorist, or not. I don't trust the Obama administration, but I am more skeptical of conspiracies. If you want me to believe that the variations in the numbers are due to something other than normal randomness, you need some evidence.

Besides being good news for obama, why do people think the data is cooked? Is there evidence of this? This type of stuff should be done by an independent body.

Good news shortly before an election warrants looking into. The fact that job creation has been trending down nearly guarantees the claim to be shady. In addition, the historical use of people giving up = lower unemployment. So, I'm looking for someone to come up with a really convincing argument as to why all of that isn't true This Time._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.